What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427963 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5427963?

Cleaning: $151.42 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427963?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13060985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427963 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5427963?

Cleaning: $151.42 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427963?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13060985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 92 Nuffield Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427963 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 92 Nuffield Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427963 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427963 — net $1,651.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$151.42	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms	$1,000.00	Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms
Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess
Net award	$1,651.42
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,651.42

Claims and awards for application 5427963 — net $1,651.42 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $151.42
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms

Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess

Net award

Landlord $1,651.42

Bond

Landlord $2,080.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,651.42

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Elevate Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management $1,651.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Elevate Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management: $1,651.42 [The tenant/s]: $428.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background The tenancy started on 12/6/2022 and ended on 13/10/2025. The landlord claim relates to carpet cleaning and replacement in two room, wall repairs/paining and replacement of a vanity. The carpets/paint and vanity were new in mid-2021 and therefore 10 months old at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence shows (and there is therefore no dispute) that the carpets and walls were not stained/damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises, including the carpets in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s claim for professional carpet stain removal is not disputed and that award therefore made by agreement.
Despite having the carpets professionally cleaned the evidence confirms that in 1 bedroom and the living area the carpets remained reasonably extensively stained.

Liability for insurance excess to replace carpet?

The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $500 which has been applied per claim. The insurance company approved the landlords claim for replacement of the carpet, based on quotations of $2,430 to replace the lounge carpet and $1,232 to replace the bedroom carpet.
The landlord is “out of pocket” for the 2 insurance excesses ($1,000) and has applied to the Tribunal seeking an order that the tenant pay the $1,000 from the bond.
The tenant questions whether the staining was sufficient to warrant the landlord having the carpets replaced (or that the carpets were reasonably clean despite the stains) and alternatively that the staining was fair wear and tear over the duration of the tenancy, noting that they had three young children for the duration of the tenancy.
I do not agree with either of the tenant’s submission.
The evidence establishes that the staining in both rooms was reasonably extensive scattered throughout the carpet in each room and was likely caused by spilled drinks or perhaps play dough/paint.
The assessor for the landlord’s insurance company MAS has confirmed the damage is sufficiently extensive to warrant replacement in both rooms.
I agree that the number and extent of the stains is sufficient that replacement was the appropriate remedy.
In doing so I note that the landlord has not claimed for replacement of the carpet in another of the bedrooms as the small, stained area remaining in that room after professional treatment did not suggest replacement was appropriate. Had I been asked to determine a claim for replacement of the carpet in that room, I would also have found that the stain could fairly be attributed to fair wear and tear. One smallish stain in a 3 ½ year tenancy could fairly be categorised that way. The more extensive staining in the other rooms cannot.
If the landlord were claiming the full cost of replacing the carpet, then 45% depreciation would be applied to allow for depreciation. The tenant is entitled to the benefit of the landlord’s insurance and so the excess only is awarded as it is less than the depreciated value of replacement of each the carpets.
In summary the landlord has proven that the staining/damage to the carpets occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants have not established that they did not carelessly cause or permit the damage. The nature and extent of the staining preclude that finding.
Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
As the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the insurance excess as this is less than both four weeks' rent and the depreciated value of the carpets.
I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. I have therefore taken into account betterment and depreciation. As explained, the excess the tenants must pay is lower than the depreciated value of the carpet in each room.
I am also satisfied that the landlord has actually incurred the $1,000 excess cost as the carpet has now been replaced in accordance with the quotation.

Liability for insurance excess for wall painting?

I have also awarded the insurance excess for the repairs/repainting of four separate walls to repair damage caused by adhesive picture hooks used by the tenants to affix artwork to the walls. The tenancy agreement required the tenants to obtain the landlord’s approval before installing any fixture to the walls. They did not do this and used adhesive hooks to attach art works to the walls which lifted the paint and plaster when removed. The tenant attempted to repair the damage by using a primer/undercoat and would have repainted the damaged areas but said the landlord did not provide the exact paint colour (despite repeated attempts to obtain this information).
The landlord said this was because the precise paint colour could not be identified by the owners, despite repeated requests as they no longer had that information.
The painter who attended to the repairs had to match the colour from paint colour charts.
I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the insurance excess. The actual cost to the landlord of repainting the affected walls was $1,288.00. The tenants have installed minor fixtures and failed to return the affected walls of property in substantially the same condition as they were provided.

Liability for insurance excess for replacement of bathroom vanity?

I have dismissed the claim for an insurance excess to replace the bathroom vanity. While satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy I am not satisfied it was caused by any act or omission of the tenants which mean it cannot be fairly categorised as caused by “carelessness”. Instead, I find the damage was caused by an unexpected event which the tenants could not have reasonably anticipated (and therefore taken steps to prevent).
The damage was caused when a heavy ceramic mug used to hold toothbrushes fell off the side of the vanity into the bottom of it, cracking both the vanity and the ceramic mug. The tenant’s reported the damage at the time it occurred, and the description of the accidental event at the hearing is completely consistent with their account to the property manager at the time.
The tenant said the damage was discovered by his wife only when she went into use the bathroom and he thinks it is likely, that a gust of wind had caused the mug to fall. He said there was no reason for them to suspect this might occur and it was a surprising or unexpected event given the heavy weight of the mug. Carelessness implies some degree of culpability which would include some foresight (and failure to mitigate the risk), as opposed to purely unexpected and accidental damage.

Filing fee reimbursement claims and name suppression?

Both parties have partly succeeded with the claims they have made. I have therefore decided that each should incur the filing fee they respectively paid.
I have approved the tenants’ request for name suppression as there is negligible public interest in publication of their names given their bond has more than covered the amounts they owe and they are partly successful in their claims. The landlord did not request name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427963 — net $1,651.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$151.42	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms	$1,000.00	Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms
Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess
Net award	$1,651.42
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,651.42

Claims and awards for application 5427963 — net $1,651.42 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $151.42
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement -insurance excess 2 bedrooms

Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: wall repairs – insurance excess

Net award

Landlord $1,651.42

Bond

Landlord $2,080.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,651.42

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Elevate Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management $1,651.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Elevate Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management: $1,651.42 [The tenant/s]: $428.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background The tenancy started on 12/6/2022 and ended on 13/10/2025. The landlord claim relates to carpet cleaning and replacement in two room, wall repairs/paining and replacement of a vanity. The carpets/paint and vanity were new in mid-2021 and therefore 10 months old at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence shows (and there is therefore no dispute) that the carpets and walls were not stained/damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises, including the carpets in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s claim for professional carpet stain removal is not disputed and that award therefore made by agreement.
Despite having the carpets professionally cleaned the evidence confirms that in 1 bedroom and the living area the carpets remained reasonably extensively stained.

Liability for insurance excess to replace carpet?

The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $500 which has been applied per claim. The insurance company approved the landlords claim for replacement of the carpet, based on quotations of $2,430 to replace the lounge carpet and $1,232 to replace the bedroom carpet.
The landlord is “out of pocket” for the 2 insurance excesses ($1,000) and has applied to the Tribunal seeking an order that the tenant pay the $1,000 from the bond.
The tenant questions whether the staining was sufficient to warrant the landlord having the carpets replaced (or that the carpets were reasonably clean despite the stains) and alternatively that the staining was fair wear and tear over the duration of the tenancy, noting that they had three young children for the duration of the tenancy.
I do not agree with either of the tenant’s submission.
The evidence establishes that the staining in both rooms was reasonably extensive scattered throughout the carpet in each room and was likely caused by spilled drinks or perhaps play dough/paint.
The assessor for the landlord’s insurance company MAS has confirmed the damage is sufficiently extensive to warrant replacement in both rooms.
I agree that the number and extent of the stains is sufficient that replacement was the appropriate remedy.
In doing so I note that the landlord has not claimed for replacement of the carpet in another of the bedrooms as the small, stained area remaining in that room after professional treatment did not suggest replacement was appropriate. Had I been asked to determine a claim for replacement of the carpet in that room, I would also have found that the stain could fairly be attributed to fair wear and tear. One smallish stain in a 3 ½ year tenancy could fairly be categorised that way. The more extensive staining in the other rooms cannot.
If the landlord were claiming the full cost of replacing the carpet, then 45% depreciation would be applied to allow for depreciation. The tenant is entitled to the benefit of the landlord’s insurance and so the excess only is awarded as it is less than the depreciated value of replacement of each the carpets.
In summary the landlord has proven that the staining/damage to the carpets occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants have not established that they did not carelessly cause or permit the damage. The nature and extent of the staining preclude that finding.
Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
As the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the insurance excess as this is less than both four weeks' rent and the depreciated value of the carpets.
I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. I have therefore taken into account betterment and depreciation. As explained, the excess the tenants must pay is lower than the depreciated value of the carpet in each room.
I am also satisfied that the landlord has actually incurred the $1,000 excess cost as the carpet has now been replaced in accordance with the quotation.

Liability for insurance excess for wall painting?

I have also awarded the insurance excess for the repairs/repainting of four separate walls to repair damage caused by adhesive picture hooks used by the tenants to affix artwork to the walls. The tenancy agreement required the tenants to obtain the landlord’s approval before installing any fixture to the walls. They did not do this and used adhesive hooks to attach art works to the walls which lifted the paint and plaster when removed. The tenant attempted to repair the damage by using a primer/undercoat and would have repainted the damaged areas but said the landlord did not provide the exact paint colour (despite repeated attempts to obtain this information).
The landlord said this was because the precise paint colour could not be identified by the owners, despite repeated requests as they no longer had that information.
The painter who attended to the repairs had to match the colour from paint colour charts.
I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the insurance excess. The actual cost to the landlord of repainting the affected walls was $1,288.00. The tenants have installed minor fixtures and failed to return the affected walls of property in substantially the same condition as they were provided.

Liability for insurance excess for replacement of bathroom vanity?

I have dismissed the claim for an insurance excess to replace the bathroom vanity. While satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy I am not satisfied it was caused by any act or omission of the tenants which mean it cannot be fairly categorised as caused by “carelessness”. Instead, I find the damage was caused by an unexpected event which the tenants could not have reasonably anticipated (and therefore taken steps to prevent).
The damage was caused when a heavy ceramic mug used to hold toothbrushes fell off the side of the vanity into the bottom of it, cracking both the vanity and the ceramic mug. The tenant’s reported the damage at the time it occurred, and the description of the accidental event at the hearing is completely consistent with their account to the property manager at the time.
The tenant said the damage was discovered by his wife only when she went into use the bathroom and he thinks it is likely, that a gust of wind had caused the mug to fall. He said there was no reason for them to suspect this might occur and it was a surprising or unexpected event given the heavy weight of the mug. Carelessness implies some degree of culpability which would include some foresight (and failure to mitigate the risk), as opposed to purely unexpected and accidental damage.

Filing fee reimbursement claims and name suppression?

Both parties have partly succeeded with the claims they have made. I have therefore decided that each should incur the filing fee they respectively paid.
I have approved the tenants’ request for name suppression as there is negligible public interest in publication of their names given their bond has more than covered the amounts they owe and they are partly successful in their claims. The landlord did not request name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427963 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 92 Nuffield Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427963 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 92 Nuffield Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Liability for insurance excess to replace carpet?

Liability for insurance excess for wall painting?

Liability for insurance excess for replacement of bathroom vanity?

Filing fee reimbursement claims and name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Liability for insurance excess to replace carpet?

Liability for insurance excess for wall painting?

Liability for insurance excess for replacement of bathroom vanity?

Filing fee reimbursement claims and name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions